Hi, I'm currently debating on evolution. I would like to know how to rebut him so far. I'm a little bit stuck.

Me:*Actually, what scientists compare aren’t just the similarities, they also consider the differences. There are some genetic sequences/mutations that are shared among some organisms but not in other. Thus, it indicates closer/farther relationship. This is how the phylogenetic trees are structured and is similar to how parental tests are conducted.*

Him: Bacteriophages invade bacteria, and can change their DNA and later mutate the gene completly. They may also carry DNA from one bacterium to another. These actions alter the genotype of the bacterium and this process is known as transduction and it is this process of viral DNA change which is responsible for the gene differences and why no scientist today believes the Darwin model to be at all plausible. Now, if your making assumption of genetic "error" in the copying of the genes from parent to progeny bacterium for the later gene then you are wrong, it is far more likely to be the other way around in corrilation to common gene desent as I have provided to you in the enzyme paper.

Me: *This is how the phylogenetic trees are structured and is similar to how parental tests are conducted. For example, all primates -including humans- can not synthesize Vitamin C, but other animals can. This implies proximity between primates and remoteness in respect to other order in the taxonomy*

This isnt the case at all, if you are arguing for predictivity in structual superiority complex then this isnt in favour of that notion. The fact we dont produce a vitamin or not doesnt refute any of the above, its actually a poor evaluation for natural selective mutations. I would refure you to Lenski for more information on that subject.

StudensPhilosophia wrote:Hi, I'm currently debating on evolution. I would like to know how to rebut him so far. I'm a little bit stuck.

Me:*Actually, what scientists compare aren’t just the similarities, they also consider the differences. There are some genetic sequences/mutations that are shared among some organisms but not in other. Thus, it indicates closer/farther relationship. This is how the phylogenetic trees are structured and is similar to how parental tests are conducted.*

Him: Bacteriophages invade bacteria, and can change their DNA and later mutate the gene completly. They may also carry DNA from one bacterium to another. These actions alter the genotype of the bacterium and this process is known as transduction and it is this process of viral DNA change which is responsible for the gene differences and why no scientist today believes the Darwin model to be at all plausible. Now, if your making assumption of genetic "error" in the copying of the genes from parent to progeny bacterium for the later gene then you are wrong, it is far more likely to be the other way around in corrilation to common gene desent as I have provided to you in the enzyme paper.

Me: *This is how the phylogenetic trees are structured and is similar to how parental tests are conducted. For example, all primates -including humans- can not synthesize Vitamin C, but other animals can. This implies proximity between primates and remoteness in respect to other order in the taxonomy*

This isnt the case at all, if you are arguing for predictivity in structual superiority complex then this isnt in favour of that notion. The fact we dont produce a vitamin or not doesnt refute any of the above, its actually a poor evaluation for natural selective mutations. I would refure you to Lenski for more information on that subject.

Suggestions anyone?

While its true that horizontal gene transfer can make determining phylogenetic relationships more difficult, it is really only an issue for those organisms for which such processes are common. His example is one of those, yes.

The case of the disfunctional Vitamin C gene is useful for demonstrating close genetic relationships among the apes because the mutation which rendered it useless is the same. If they were due to independent events among the different species, then they would not be identical. It isn't clear whether or not this was an adaptive event, but that is irrelevant for phylogenetics. So, I'm not sure why he is bring up natural selection.

Also, I'm not sure what "Darwin model" he is referring to. If he is referring to natural selection, then he is dead wrong... if he is referring to Darwin's hypothesis for the mechanism of heredity, he is correct, but I don't see how that fits in with your argument.

It almost seems like you two are having two different discussions.....

This is extremely common in prokaryotes - meaning bacteria. In higher organisms horizontal gene transfer is very rare, and can only happen via the action of a retrovirus affecting gametes. It is sufficiently rare that it has not significant effect on evolution, which happens pretty much as Darwind described.

In the prokaryotes, this process makes taxonomy and the outlining of evolutionary relationships very difficult, if not impossible. However, evolutionary trends in higher organisms are clear.

Vitamin C is a critical coenzyme, but also available in many plants. Primate ancestors with a mutation that shut down its production were not selected against, since they were getting it in their food. Why it became the "norm" in the group isn't clear, but the descendants also did not suffer from the loss of ability. This demonstrates the randomness of evolutionary pathways, and that sometimes the absence of selection pressure affects the passage of a trait.

Vitamin C is indeed an important coenyme and could have been shut down due to many reasons, including a gene mutation introduced by bacteria or it could be simply that the amount of the Vitamin was more plentiful in the intake therefore creating an overdose situation, which would trigger the shut down. With adverse effects of too much vitamin C include the shut down of many internal organs, vision being effected and good ol diarrhea, just to name a few. It really becomes an argument for adaptation or mutation, then for evolution which dictates a natural selection for survival. Very poor debate material.We ourselves are a poor example of "Evolution", which in my opinion, is really having a hard time holding water, these days. If you really want to argue for evolution, try studying DNA and figure out where the instructions contained within the DNA strands come from and then you will have your true beginning of your phylogenetic tree. Until you figure that part out, it really is a cumbersome argument.